A possible run for President would be a great way for Ron Paul to put the GOP back on the right track.
Given the popularity of President Bush, you might think it would be a few years before another Texan had the temerity to consider a run for president. If you did, you'd be overlooking Ron Paul who's about as different from President Bush as you can get and who just formed an exploratory committee for a run at the White House in 2008. That means he can start raising money in anticipation of launching a full-scale campaign for the Presidency.…
Article comments
126 - Eric Dondero
No, my bias is Pro-America, Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.
Why do you think I left his employ after 12 years? Had a nice cushy job, making $50 K, with an office with a large window and a view.
Why would someone leave a situation like that?
Because of patriotism.
I love my country more than I love some $50 K a year job.
127 - Eric Dondero
Response to Michael J. West. I cannot believe you said that. You fell right into my trap. You are completely naiive.
PIM FORTUYN WAS MURDERED BY A RADICAL LEFTIST WITH STRONG TIES TO ISLAMASISTS IN THE NETHERLANDS.
Read the Bruce Bawer book, NY Times bestseller, "While the West Slept: The Rise of Radical Islam in Europe."
Bawer, a Gay man from New York, documents fully how Fortuyn's assasin was tied to Radical Islam.
You Sir, are a victim of extreme Leftwing media bias.
128 - Dave Nalle
Be nice, Dave. Not all of us on the left are bombastic fools. Some of us work very hard to be rational and reasonable, and to have our facts both straight and at our disposal.
That's why I idenitifed the problem as the 'bombastic fools' not the left in general. Of course, the problem of not having accurate facts or understanding them when they do see them is more widespread than just the most outspoken and idiotic. There's a general trend on the left to accept propaganda and not question it.
There is no rational argument against Ron Paul's ability or integrity. He is exactly what the doctor ordered. He has taken a stand on more issues than all the other candidates combined. His record plainly shows his commitment as well as his values. Mr. Dondero obviously has an ex-employee/employer bias.
I don't have that bias, and I agree with everything you said, except that despite all of the good things about Ron Paul, I also know perfectly well that he cannot win th GOP nomination or a general election. Remember Barry Goldwater? Paul is more ideologically rigid than Goldwater, less well known, and infinitely less charismatic. Goldwater suffered a crushing defeat. Paul won't get even that far.
But as I've said before, it's great that he's running so long as he can hold on to his seat in Congress at the same time. His real value is that he raises the level of debate and brings up issues which the other candidates need to be tested on. He's also make a pretty viable VP.
Dave
129 - Philly Dave
Read the Bruce Bawer book, NY Times bestseller, "While the West Slept: The Rise of Radical Islam in Europe.
Or read Buchanan's
"Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency"
130 - Mike In WNY
Eric, assuming your account of Bush supporting Ron Paul is true, it shows that Ron Paul can't be bought and will not compromise his principles for money. We need more politicians like him, not less.
As for his pro-life stance, he has also stated that it should not be a federal issue, which makes it a non-issue here.
131 - Eric Dondero
You should read Ron Paul's booklet "Abortion and Liberty." It's frightenly Pro-Life. Yeah, RP says that now. But back in the 1980s he was a Pro-Life extremist, used the rhetoric of Operation Rescue and such.
Also, here in his Congressional District he's much more Pro-Life than his national persona would imply.
He tells constituents here in Texas that he's "100% Pro-Life."
Funny, for a national audience he's "States Rights" on the issue.
Further proof? His longtime Campaign Manager and Consultant is Marc Elam of Houston. Elam is one of the best known Religious Right extremists and Pro-Life Activists here in South Texas. Nice guy and all. But he's Radical Religious Right. Elam ghost wrote and produced Ron's book "Abortion & Liberty."
132 - NH
Oh for God's sake stop it Eric.
How can anyone be 'frighteningly' pro-life? If you 'libertarians' are against the death penalty for criminals then you should be against it for innocent babies. The man is a baby doctor so I would HOPE he was pro-life, everyone's life.
Libertarians who are against the death penalty but not for babies are bloody hypocrites!
133 - Christopher Rose
NH: Can't agree with your death penalty-abortion equivalence. It has nothing at all to do with liberalism or hypocrisy and rather more to do with the rights of the living.
134 - Mark
Good Hornberger piece today at LewRockwell on Mr. Dondero's favorite neologism: "Islamo-fascists."
135 - Philly Dave
Ron Paul has been quite clear on his Pro-Life Position. He has spent equal time trying to convince Pro-Lifers to come over to his states rights position and seek to overturn Roe v Wade instead of federal prohibition as he has spent trying to appeal to libertarians that respect for the individual neccessetates protection of their life at the earliest time. The latter is the point of the booklet Dondero cited.
Paul knows that nationalizeing the issue will KEEP it nothing more than an ISSUE to campaign on thus he CORRECTLY insists on returning regulation of abortion to the states.
Read Paul's statement on his website around the time of the Terry Schieavo drama. He is clear that the true answer lies in getting the federal governemtn out of these issues and working to change attitudes one person at a time at the local level.
Even the Roe court agreed that the question of "personhood" could not be answered by the courts.
E.D.'s claims that Paul hides his national persona from the aparently (by E.D.'s implication) ignorant Texans is absurd. Even if he emphasized some positions over others at home, congressional elections are a 2 year cycle. Every other year there is an opponent using everything they can against Paul. If we believe E.D., they too are too stupid to inform the ignorant Texans of Paul's "Secret Federal life". LMAO @ E.D.
136 - Eric Dondero
Why do you presume Libertarians are Anti-Death Penalty? That's the wussy girlie-man positions. All Libertairans are not girlie-men who think Jessica Lunsford's killer Couley, should be given a life sentence, cable TV and 3 square meals a day.
I say not only put him to death, but make him suffer as badly if not worse than he made little Jessica suffer.
137 - Eric Dondero
Read the Jacob Hornberger piece. Had to hit the snooze button after the first two paragraphs. Talk about boring-ass, pointey-headed intellectualism.
Here's a little rule to keep a reader's interest: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.
138 - Man Fading
Here is an interesting bit of candidate website hit statistics:
According to Alexa data:
Traffic Rank for hillaryclinton.com: 18,401
Traffic Rank for ronpaulexplore.com: 240,343
139 - Dave Nalle
How can anyone be 'frighteningly' pro-life?
I can imagine all sorts of ways. For example they could endorse forced breeding programs or harsh criminal penalties for abortion doctors.
If you 'libertarians' are against the death penalty for criminals then you should be against it for innocent babies.
I think it's a mistake to assume that all libertarians oppose the death penaltty. When criminals take the lives of others they forfeit their own rights including the right to life.
This kind of issue is why some libertarians find themselves more comfortable int he GOP than with the extreme ideologues of the LP.
Libertarians who are against the death penalty but not for babies are bloody hypocrites!
I guess I'm okay then since I'm universally pro-death.
Dave
140 - NH
FORCED BREEDING? Oh c'mon, that's far out.
I would rather be worried about them instituting a ONE CHILD POLICY like in China rather than a forced breeding program.
Abortion doctors like Planned Parenthood SHOULD get harsh penalties, like anyone else who murders people.
Just look how PP covers up for rapists and with the help of the NH govt.
141 - Eric Dondero
Right on Dave. Where this idea came from that Libertarians were opposed to the Death Penalty is baffling. I'd say -- purely anectodal -- my guess is that well over half of all Libertarians are in favor of the Death Penalty for First Degree Murder.
You describe it perfectly. If someone violates the ultimate individual right -- the right to life of a cognizant human being -- than they should sacrifice their own.
142 - Mike In WNY
The right to life is an inalienable right. It is not created or granted by the power of government, therefor, government does not have the right to take it away.
143 - Philly Dave
Many Libertarians (me included) struggle with the death penalty because distrust for the state's monopoly on force, inherent incompetence and tendancy towards corruption competes with our belief in swift and appropriate justice for those who agress upopn others.
144 - Dave Nalle
The right to life is an inalienable right. It is not created or granted by the power of government, therefor, government does not have the right to take it away.
Ah, but in the case of crime, government does not take away rights. By taking away the right to life of another person, you have by that very action forfeited your own right to life. The only role of the government - through a jury of your peers - is determining the truth of whether you committed homicide.
Libertarian utopian writers often use this reasoning as the basis for fictions in which murderers are outlawed and relatives of the victim are allowed to hunt them down and kill them.
dave
145 - Marc Scott Emery
Dave.
Is this so?
"By taking away the right to life of another person, you have by that very action forfeited your own right to life."
Ought a soldier in war of any side forfeit his life if he kills? What about those who ordered him to do it? Does malpractice determine if a doctor forfeits his life if he is criminally negligent? Does the ignorant or insane mother suffering depression who kills her children forfeit her life? Does the elderly male, with on average, 8 drugs coursing through the typical 62 year old, forfeit their own life if he drives into school children following an adverse reaction to those drugs?
Or is it "evil" people only who forfeit their lives?
I am very pro-choice on abortion. I continue to advocate Ron Paul as the 100% perfect choice to lead any country, including the United States. The man is consistent, honorable, humble, thoughtful, intelligent, unbreakable integrity, libertarian. There is no man or woman on the national scene that comes close. I am prepared to agree that abortion falls under article 10 of the Constitution, falling to the States or the individuals. I mean, that is a fair trade if it meant the executive branch (The President) and the Congress could only operate within a strict constitutional limit of their powers in all areas. So many issues would be returned to the states or the citizens that the states would see pretty lively democracies going on, 50 differing experiments. I think thats what the founding fathers had in mind. I think if each one of us holds out for our personal vision of libertarian utopia, well, thats ridiculous.
I'm with Colbert on this one, I think Ron Paul passes the truthiness test. In my gut, I know Ron Paul is the best man to lead the United States. Or Canada. He passes every reasonable test of worthiness. He is so connected to us in our libertarian belief in strictly limited government that supporting any other candidate at this stage in the primaries is a betrayal. There is not going to be a better opportunity to propel a libertarian through a mainstream party as in 2007, and with courage and work, in 2008.
I mean, if not Ron Paul now, then who? I mean, really, who?
146 - Dave Nalle
Marc. I was talking in the most general terms about cut and dried murder. Things do get more complex, though the basic principle ought to still apply.
Ought a soldier in war of any side forfeit his life if he kills?
Actually, I'd argue that a soldier signs away his right to life when he takes that job.
In my gut, I know Ron Paul is the best man to lead the United States. Or Canada.
I didn't know he was up for president of Canada too, or are we going to be combining the two countries?
He passes every reasonable test of worthiness. He is so connected to us in our libertarian belief in strictly limited government that supporting any other candidate at this stage in the primaries is a betrayal. There is not going to be a better opportunity to propel a libertarian through a mainstream party as in 2007, and with courage and work, in 2008.
You're so mired in your love of Paul's ideology that you've become completely divorced from reality. You also seem not to have ever seen him speak. He lacks basic interpersonal skills and charisma. He's off-putting and unlikely to hold the attention of the public or even enough people in the GOP to get the nomination. He's just not personally appealing, and much though we may wish it didn't, that counts in an election.
The other problem with Paul as a national candidate is that he's too much of a liberarian purist. I believe in basic libertarian principles as much of the next guy, but I also realize that trying to impose them from the top down without any willingness to compromise - and Paul is an ideological absolutist - is unworkable and will lead to an impasse or at worst a disaster and a major crisis in leadership.
Paul appeals to libertarians because he's one of them, but to appeal to more than just libertarians he has to demonstrate that he can find common ground with other people and groups and I see no evidence at all that he can. He has zero willingness to work with others, and that's a fatal flaw in a politician.
Dave
I mean, if not Ron Paul now, then who? I mean, really, who?
147 - Mike In WNY
Dave,
Ron Paul has voted for legislation that is not 100% compatible with his "libertarian" principles, but was a step in the right direction. He does understand the value of compromise.
148 - Dave Nalle
Mike, what legislation would that be? I'm looking at his voting record right now, and the only things I see him voting on in a way which is not rigidly ideological are a few procedural items which are ideologically neutral.
But yes, I agree that he is not libertarian in at least one area - his stance on immigration. He's borrowed a leaf from conservative extremists and totally diverges from any reasonable libertarian approach to immigration, an issue on which Giuliani has a firmly libertarian position in favor of providing opportunities for guest workers.
Dave
149 - Mike In WNY
Dave,
HR 5638, Ron Paul voted affirmatively to increase tax exemptions and reduce rates - ideologically, he would want the taxes eliminated completely.
HR 4 - Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act - Ron Paul is opposed to government provided health care yet voted for this bill because it lowers costs.
Those are a couple of examples. As far as immigration policy, it would be unfair to characterize Ron Paul as being opposed to guest worker programs. He is in favor of fairly applying immigration laws to all people, enforcing visa regulations and eliminating the availability of social welfare programs for immigrants. He in no way supports eliminating immigration, just making it rational. In other words, he wants to take away the incentives that lead to illegal immigration.
150 - Daves
Americans will finally have to draw a line in the sand, just like they did at the Alamo in 1836. None stepped across the line and died in the name of freedom and the right to follow their own destiny. Today we have been carefully brainwashed by what we do not know, because the truth has been suppressed by our own government and the open border zealots. Our own print media has been influenced by the monopoly of the power mongers who own the newspapers. Unless we turn our attention to the small town newspapers, the blogs or forums we would remain in complete solitude of the ugly truth. We have been invaded and just because it doesn’t show the emblem of a military regiment, none the less millions of foreign nationals have occupied our nation. The agenda is a simple one formulated by the wealthy elites, who cannot contain their desperate need for more profit. It’s a story as old as the world itself and the greatest scourge to control people like slaves.
The plan was secretly discussed in Banff, Canada in 2002, to slowly open the gates to millions of cheap foreign labor that would undermine the living wages of lower skilled on these shores. This was the hallucinating dream of the rich and powerful to begin the European Common Market like Union on our continent. They say if you put the evidence right in front of the publics face, they will never know the full impact until its too late. So it is with the (NAU) North American Union or as its additionally called, The Peace and Prosperity Agreement. The (PPS) is the grand plan of the Bush Administration, with signatures of Canada’s last Prime Minister Martin and a lame duck Presidente from Mexico. Unable to complete any practable changes in Mexico’s corrupt regime to alleviate
Gross poverty, he viewed America as the perfect patsy to relieve the festering powder keg of internal revolution. Why Canada’s co-conspirator joined this abomination agenda is unknown to me. But I’m sure the huge multi-national corporations had their fingers in this trillion dollar pie.
Outside of the American people’s flat refusal or voice of dissention, we must look to a few brave souls who have the backbone to speak out against any of the Shadows Government Global Domination. Enter Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado, along with Representative Ron Paul (TX) and perhaps Steve King (IA). Forget their designation as Republicans or Democrats because both sides of our Congress are involved in the heinous plan to steal our flag, sovereignty and U.S. Constitution. The first stage was the 13 to 30 million illegal aliens squatting in America, followed by the unhindered movement of low maintained Mexican trucks traveling on our highways.
Bush must be held accountable for this Benedict Arnold treaty, for it will cause the downfall of this nations way of life. This is no longer a conspiracy theory because many state legislative bodies have approved bills that dissolve any mechanism that would try to overthrow our own system of government. We have enjoyed our freedoms and rights for 250 years, so we must fight any obnoxious plan to merge our three countries. We must look towards politicians who serve the American people and not the corporate monster that wants to enslave us.
Get the truth at: Stop SPP (and) Judicial Watch (and) Immigration Counters
151 - Dave Nalle
Why, how appropriate that you should spam your little essay of lunacy onto this particular post when I recently wrote an article on this very subject - perhaps you would enjoy readin it.
Dave
152 - Richard Brodie
Although I like Ron Paul's strong opposition to the War on Iraq (and I do mean "on" not just "in", since it is a culture destroying war that seeks to convert them to an alien, democratic/capitalistic system), the main reasons I'm contributing to his campaign, and would vote for him, are his position against the SPP, and his promise to stop illegal immigration and the insanity of citizenship by birthplace regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
The only thing wrong with his platform is that he does not oppose all immigration.
153 - Paul Levinson
Dave - I'm pleased to say that, for once, I agree with you! Ron Paul's defense of the Constitution easily makes him the best Republican candidate, and I sincerely hope he gets the nomination.
I wrote a blog post about this last month - Ron Paul At Very Least the Most Appealing Republican for President
154 - Dave Nalle
I wish I could say that we did agree, Paul, but while I find much to admire in Ron Paul I don't think he's the best GOP candidate. I think his general lack of pragmatism and reliance on ideologically rigid assumptions makes him incapable of following his candidacy through to victory or running the country well.
Right now I think Giuliani is as close as the GOP is going to get to a Libertarian candidate. He shares many of the basic principles of libertarianism, but he's enough of a realist to actually get elected and do some good.
Either that or we need to hold out for Mark Sandford in 2012 or 2016.
Dave
155 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I don't have a dog in this race. I'm an ex-pat from Minnesota and the main thing I know about Texas is that it is on the other end of Interstate 35 and has huge cockroaches. Whether any of them post at this site is an issue I'll not address.
I live in Samaria and have no love whatever for the Arabs who constantly talk about wanting us all dead.
I'd like to address some of you here, particularly Eric, by recommending you to my writers page at BlogCritics Magazine. I recommend you to my article "Dependence Day" and to my articles on the likelihood of war with Iran. I would also ask that you look over my piece Ruminations on the Future of the People of Israel, particularly for its first section on definitions, so that you don't get bogged down or confused about terms like "Israeli," "Palestinian," etc.
Put briefly, while I think that initially going in to unhorse Saddam Hussein might have been a good thing, your army should have pulled out as fast as it moved in. Your real enemy in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. They fund the Wahhabi religious movement and all of its branches, and for the most part, the Wahhabi have stolen Islam and turned it into a nightmare for the Moslems, not to mention all the minorities who have to live with a philosophy of persecution and murder of non-believers. The Taliban, who unfortunately have a hold on many Pakhtun in Afganistan, are a sect of Moslems from Deoband, India, who worship like the Sufi but have a religious philosophy that corresponds to the Wahhabi. I suspect (I'm guessing here) that one of the reasons that the Taliban has been so successful among the Pakhtun is their belief in keeping women out of the public eye, which is a Pakhtun cultural more in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir and Jammu.
As for the average Moslem, they tend to view western culture as a pornographic culture of whores, sexual deviants and perverts who do not have enough class to keep their clits and penises behind closed doors - a key point, as Moslems have plenty of sexual deviants and whores themselves - BEHIND closed doors... So for many Moslems, westerners have no manners or self-respect and deserve none from them. This is certainly the view of many Moslems of secular Israelis, the very ones in this country who talk so loudly about "Peace Now" and about being "tired of winning", and all the other bullshit that indicates a suicidal tendency to let the enemy kill one.
A separate issue are the Shi'a. They have more of a messianic view of the world, and their Mahdi is someone that Ahmadinejad is trying to foist on all of us "qafir", as well as upon the Sunni Moslems. If Ahmadinejad wants to hide a revived Persian empire behind his Mahdi, so be it, so long as the Iranians can send troops freely from their own territory to the Meditteranean.
What does all this have to do with Ron Paul and the fractured Republican Party? First of all, while it might be personally more honorable to stick by an ally (Bush having made Rep. Paul's re-election possible) is sticking by someone who is nothing more than the son of the Saudi head-waiter here a wise thing? Second of all, is it wise to support keeping American troops in Iraq when they would be far better employed guarding oil fields in Arabia after having nuked Riyadh and having gotten rid of the head of the Wahhabi snake, the family of ibn Saud?
My point? Once you get rid of the central funding source for all the madrassas that teach rabid hatred of the west, the madrassas have to either close or change their own tune.
Does Ron Paul understand any of this? Do you, Eric and all you other libertarians arguing over candidates?
If you are all stuck in the ruts of the standard foreign policy debates in America and are not able to see the realities (one of which is that there is no such animal as Islamo-fascism - this is just a term to keep you from seeing the Wahhabi behind the curtain), then you are all wasting your time. The real money makers in the world who are raking in obscene profits, the drug lords, the oil men and the bankers, will continue to manipulate you like so many puppets while your standard of living falls and falls and falls.
156 - Eric Dondero
Interesting to see that after all this time you all are still continuing this thread. This is obviously a hot topic.
I'd only say that I'm impressed with Dave's comments that Giuliani, while not a straight out Libertarian, is probably the best we could ever hope for.
That's my argument too.
Giuliani is probably the closest thing we're ever going to get to an actual Libertarian President in our lifetimes.
So, you Giuliani critics need to lighten up and embrace him.
Libertarians for Giuliani
157 - Mike Wagner
And what exactly makes Guliani a libertarian? He was mayor of NYC for years and certainly didn't do much to shrink the bloated NYC bureaucracy, legalize guns or drugs, cut spending or anything else that could be considered libertarian.
No, I'm sorry to say, but Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate out there with a firm track record of supporting most (but not all) libertarian ideals. If Ron Paul is not the next President, I'm leaving the US. I'm not quite sure where I'll go, but there are a few countries south of here where my pension will enable me to live very nicely.
I really don't want to be here when the police state really kicks in.
The US just isn't what it used to be. Sad to say we are not a great nation any more, just a crumbling empire. We had such potential and we blew it.
158 - Richard Brodie
Dave says: "his general lack of pragmatism and reliance on ideologically rigid assumptions makes him incapable of following his candidacy through to victory or running the country well."
Oh my God! Another "do-nothing" President. Just imagine all the stupid wars we would not have fought, all the entangling alliances we would not have entered into, and all the bureaucracies we would not now be saddled with, if only all of our Presidents had been do-nothings!
159 - Mike Wagner
"ideologically rigid assumptions"? Do you mean like...having Congress and the President actually OBEY the US Constitution? There's a quaint thought. The idea that maybe, just maybe in a nation that prides itself on being a "nation of laws, and not of men," might actually insist that its leaders obey the law. Is that what you mean by "ideologically rigid assumptions?"
Obeying the law is not an ideologically rigid assumption, it is simply obeying the law. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and Federal officials are sworn to uphold it. I'll take that sort of ideologically rigid assumption over the fuzzy logic that passes for deep thought inside the beltway anyday. By all means, let's have more of these ideologically rigid assumptions.
160 - Richard Brodie
Dave, the President's job is not to "run the country"
To be successful at running the government well, he needs to do two things. One, sign vetoes until he has writer's cramp. And two, communicate to the American people explaining how the legislation he is vetoing violates the Constitution and/or threatens our Liberties.
If the government is well run (constitutionally), then the country will run itself just fine.
161 - Christopher Rose
Richard, as a modest gesture of goodwill, I'd like to point out that you have transposed the o and the d in the url for your site, so it is not getting linked to...
162 - Richard Brodie
Check out my new Ron Paul video
Feel free to copy it to your own site if you like it.
163 - Dave Nalle
Wow, Richard. Disturbingly reminiscent of Nazi party propaganda from the 1930s. "Our Plan" as in "Mein Kampf"? Awfully close.
And here I was thinking about voting for Paul at least in the primary.
BTW, I kind of wonder if you realize that Paul opposes almost all of your most cherished beliefs?
Dave
164 - Graham McKnight
'...he's dead-set against the War in Iraq or any interventionist foreign policy.'
Is this what the Inavsion is known as? An intervention? Shucks, that sure is a sugar-coated explanation for nation breaking and oil grabbing.
165 - Ray
"Is this what the Inavsion is known as? An intervention? Shucks, that sure is a sugar-coated explanation for nation breaking and oil grabbing."
Interventions can be for any stated or unstated political agenda, the point is to put an end to interventionist foreign policies.
Power corrupts, so let's rein in our overly intrusive government at home as well as abroad in order to reduce the corruption and abuse of power.
166 - Gloria
"He has zero willingness to work with others, and that's a fatal flaw in a politician."
In fact, Ron Paul is known for working with many other members of Congress on legislation, including bipartisan measures. He often works with Democratic politicians, more than you can say of many rigid Republicans; he works with Jeff Flake for smaller government measures. It's silly to say he doesn't work with anyone, not to mention just plain wrong. He'd be willing to work with anyone who came up with Constitutional, small government, sensible measures. He just doesn't vote the party line with other Republicans when the party line is unconstitutional; I think that's a good thing and I wish my representative, John Shimkus, did the same thing. But no, Shimkus goes along with the party on anything, even larger-government measures.
167 - Harold Driver
Sanford for prez?? read on.
Republican senator to decide today if he will challenge Sanford
By AARON GOULD SHEININ
Sen. Jake Knotts said Sunday he has the numbers, but he is not yet sure he would have the votes.
Knotts, R-Lexington, has until noon today to decide whether he’ll submit stacks of petitions to the S.C. Election Commission in an attempt to place his name on the November ballot for governor as an independent.
“I really want to run and I really want to be governor,” Knotts said. “But I’ve got to look into the woods and not just at the tree line.”
Knotts’ adviser, Rod Shealy Jr., said early Sunday afternoon that he did not have an accurate count but was sure they had more than 10,000 signatures " the number required to get on the ballot.
Signed petitions “are still coming in from all over the state,” Shealy said. “We’re sitting down now to make sure that he’s going to pass muster with the election commission. The enthusiasm is out there, boy.”
Passing muster with the commission is a major concern and it could take several days for Knotts’ petition to be accepted or rejected. The signatures must be verified as having come from registered voters.
Petition experts in South Carolina have said it is wise to turn in 14,000 to 15,000 signatures to be sure that 10,000 meet the state’s standards.
But even if he has enough signatures, Knotts said he has yet to decide if he’ll pull the trigger and run.
168 - Chris Welton
Note to Progressives...
One thing that is critical to remeber about Ron Paul is that while his beliefs on progressive issues are not considered by many people to be "good", he is still firmly in favor of giving that power back to the states. I live in Washington... I would like to see universal healthcare, evironmental reform, and a safety net to help people in hard times. I have come to the realization, however, that these are NEVER going to come so long as we live in a police state with federal laws preventing change at the state level and a bureaucracy intent of the status quo. The system is rigged... Period.
Every year we send hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal government and then bitch when it doesn't come back to us. It's time to quit sending the money out in the first place, and use it instead to fix the problems in the states in which we now stand.
The simple fact is, the positions of his which could be considered "bad" are positions which he does not attempt to dictate to the people.
With Ron Paul you will be able to affect real change where you live. Without him, you won't be able to affect it at any level.
America Needs Ron Paul!
169 - Dave Nalle
Harold, that's a pretty depressing bit of news you've brought up. The idea that some religious-right whacko would want to run against Sandford and think he has enough support to make it worthwhile is pretty discouraging. Let's hope that if he runs Sandford hammers him into the ground.
What's Knotts platform going to be, raising taxes and reducing school choice? Seems like a hard campaign to run for a republican given Sandford's exceptional record.
BTW, I read up on Knotts. His main claims to fame seem to be that he's a Vietnam vet and a freemason.
Dave
170 - Jeff S.
I heard a rumor Eric was going 2 run for Paul's seat. It looks like he is running on an anti-Paul platform. And Guiliani is not a liberterian.
171 - michelle fire eater
This Giuliani quotation, from a 1994 speech, sums up his philosophy: "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
There is nothing moderate about this statement. I have a lot of tolerance for different perspectives, but this attitude that Judy Ruliani is acceptable in any way is abhorrent to me.
172 - Dave Nalle
Michelle, you might want to read that quote in context. I agree that it's rather poorly stated, but it's clear that Giuliani's overall intent in the speech is not really to say that 'freedom is about authority'. What he's actually saying is that freedom requires responsibility and that the reason we give government authority is to protect our freedoms. Let's hope he's gotten better speechwriters since then.
Dave
173 - Ben
All you people who believe we were honestly attacked by muslims on 9-11 wake up and smell the coffee!
The Independent Thinker's 9/11 FACT SHEET What occurred on September 11th, 2001 is a matter of facts, physics and unprecedented violations of national protocol by American officials themselves. Here are
10 points to consider. There are hundreds more.
1. No steel-framed building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire.
2. No official agency (FAA, FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a list of the 9/11 passengers. But within hours, the FBI released a list of the hijackers.
3. Multiple air-defense drills were planned for the morning of 9/11. These exercises left only two fighter jets available to protect the entire Northeastern United States.
4. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center complex, was not struck by a plane but collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.
5. There was no visible airplane debris where Flight 93 supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania - only a smoking hole in the ground, much like a bomb crater.
6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could cause the towers' steel structure to buckle or fail.
7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported.
8. 9/11 was immediately declared an "act of war" by President Bush. The rubble from the Twin Towers' collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination.
9. Enormous profits were made by insiders on plummeting stock prices of the two airlines involved in 9/11 - American and United. Federal law protects their identities.
10. Accepting victims' compensation barred 9/11 families from further discovery through litigation.
check out this link proving the trade towers collapsing, including tower number 7 (which was never hit by a plane) was an inside demolition job. There are numerous facts and CIA agents that have come out and even admitted the CIA helped train the hijackers. Research it for yourself if you don't believe me! The patriot act, along with the 2007 defense authorization act clearly make this the most powerful u.s. presidency ever in history- if we ever got attacked again Bush with the stroke of a pen would be able to sidestep congress and have unlimited power in total martial law including the use of UN soldiers which he already said he would use if we ever got attacked again! The neocons and neolibs want a new world order- vote ron paul! While ron paul claims we were attacked because of our policy- im takin it a step further- we were attacked by our own government! Listen to audio files if rudy fuckin guiliani on tv stations announcing the fall of trade center number 7 20 minutes before it eveen collapses! Research it for yourself!
174 - Andy Marsh
YOu see...this is what i love about BC...you guys let any moonbat post here! But it does keep it interesting...
When did Rosie change her name to Ben anyway???